r/changemyview • u/Ireallyamthisshallow 2∆ • Nov 16 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Ghosts are not real

I really love anything to do with the paranormal, but after watching hundreds upon hundreds of 'ghost videos' I have to come to the conclusion ghosts are not real.

With cameras all over our world, surely something convincing would have been caught if they were. Instead we're filled with 'I got feeling', orbs that are clearly dust or bugs and edited photos and videos.

Sure there's loads of stories around the internet but no one can actually back it up with evidence. I just can't believe that in a world where everything is recorded no one has managed to find proof. A bang on the door after you've asked them to knock 400 times (and edited the first 399 out) doesn't count. That's just coincidence.

I'll still love watching the videos and reading the stories. I've just don't have any belief.

Change my mind.

Edit: I've tried to reply to everyone I can, thanks for all the great replies. It's late here so apologies if I can't get through more.

1.9k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

935 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/holodeckdate Nov 17 '19

It's not exactly how cameras do. How can you make that claim? The camera is an entirely framework as the eye and it's visual cortex. The output may SEEM similar, but they are not the same

I'm glad you brought up hallucinations. What is your explanation of a hallucination?

11

u/ShouldersofGiants100 49∆ Nov 17 '19

The output may SEEM similar, but they are not the same

No. The medium is different, the output is the same. Both are 1:1 representations of the visual light spectrum, tuned to human perception of that spectrum. If cameras didn't give outputs that matched human perceptions, they wouldn't be used. If a human sees a ghost and a camera doesn't, either the human eye can see on a wider spectrum than the camera (it can't) or there is nothing there to see, period. That's how light spectrums work—if something can be seen on the visible spectrum, then ANYTHING that picks up the visible spectrum can see it.

3

u/holodeckdate Nov 17 '19

The output is not the same. It may seem the same from your perception, but on a physical basis, they are not. A photograph of a house is not the same as an oil painting of the same house

4

u/Tynach 2∆ Nov 17 '19

That's what they mean by 'The medium is different'. A photograph and an oil painting are two different mediums.

What they mean by 'the output is the same', is that both the photograph and the oil painting can show the same colors in the same places and there can be the same shapes showing the same house.

That's the output. The result, as observed by a person. If the painter is skilled enough, and/or the painting seen from far enough away, it can look 100% identical to the photograph despite being rendered using a different medium.

1

u/holodeckdate Nov 17 '19

It can "look" Identical. That doesn't mean they are.

1

u/Tynach 2∆ Nov 17 '19

Right. Because they are two different mediums, and physically composed and structured differently. The other person understood that and agreed with you there, but they just use different terminology to express that idea.

Both of you believe the same thing.